Your point, while factually accurate, is not applicable because the scales of the two activities are so drastically different.
I honestly believe that the majority of piracies in these cases would never have translated into sales at current prices.
There's no box office release for books. That's how.
Ahh, but the consumer cares not about the creator in most cases, just about the work. The consumer's value proposition is independent of the costs or profit margins of the creator. From the consumer's standpoint, the audio books are horrendously overpriced compared to other forms of entertainment.
Ahh, but the consumer cares not about the creator in most cases, just about the work.
This is the whole point. If the consumer cares about the work and wants more, they should be aware that pirating is less likely to bring them more. It's instant gratification in exchange for long-term gratification. If you don't care about future content from writers you like, then this concept doesn't impact you.
I honestly believe that the majority of piracies in these cases would never have translated into sales at current prices.
Your belief doesn't make it so. See, the thing about used book sales is that the number of used books in circulation can never exceed the number of original books sold. Not so with piracy. You don't have to sell a single hard copy in order for 100 people to pirate the book. The ratio of pirated downloads to legitimate purchases has, in fact, made publishers refuse to produce more books from certain highly-pirated authors. The fact is that we see sales number differences in books that are only released in paper and books that are also released as eBooks. We see Google searches for pirated copies of books that aren't even out yet. If a reader is anticipating a book that much, I think they could be bothered to drop at least the $7.99 it will cost in paperback. But they can get it for free on the internet, so why bother? Bother because if you like the author enough that you want to read more from them, you should make sure the publisher keeps putting out their product.
I understand your philosophy on life is that of a scavenger and not a pull consumer. Your financial philosophy is to consume whatever is put before you instead of encouraging the production of specific goods you want to see. That's fine, but it is not the philosophy to which this appeal is made.
Nuri, I think you are failing because you assume the reader really cares that much. The fact is that when people do actually care about something, they line up and empty their wallets. People pirate things that they don't really give a shit about.
Take for example superhero comics. There are torrents you can get every week that have every single Marvel and DC comic scanned. The people who get those torrents would not under any circumstance buy all those comics. The overwhelming majority could not afford to buy all those comics. If that torrent went away, they would simply stop reading. They read it because it's free, and if it weren't free they wouldn't read. The fanboys who would buy the comics still do so. There's few, if any, people who are willing and able to purchase those comics who pirate instead.
If anything those pirated comics are actually making money for Marvel and DC. People who otherwise would never have read a superhero comic, now at least read them. They become fans, and maybe they grow to care over time. That results in them maybe seeing a movie, or buying merch, or who knows what.
Also, you point out that publishers are pooping on authors who have lots of piracy. Those publishers are morons. Obviously a more pirated author is a more popular author. You want to keep them, not get rid of them! Also, in an era when anyone can put out a book on their own, what do you even need a publisher for? To take a cut of your revenues? You used to need publishers to do the printing and the marketing, but they're just middlemen. In the world of 2011, publishers are obsolete and completely unnecessary. The only middle-men who aren't obsolete are the ones who provide technological services, but even they have no business model if people are technologically competent.
Your financial philosophy is to consume whatever is put before you instead of encouraging the production of specific goods you want to see.
I didn't say it was my philosophy. I just think it's going to be the majority philosophy in the mid-term.
Whatever my philosophy, my reality is that I am barely engaged as a consumer of anything where my consumption is meaningful to the creator, what for the fact that the accumulated wealth of things I've purchased in the past far outweighs any desire to acquire more. I spend more money on conventions than I do on all media combined in an average year, yet simultaneously pirate almost nothing (discounting piracy of things that are patently unavailable legally).
You can just hire a single person to be an editor. Pay them a flat fee for their services, and you're all set. You don't need to get a huge publishing deal where they take a cut of your revenues and maybe even your rights, and restrict you in all sorts of ways.
Nuri, I think you are failing because you assume the reader really cares that much.
Scott, I think you are failing in thinking that I am failing.
If you will look at everything I have posted, it is not intended to berate you or tell you you should be buying books instead of pirating them. I am simply offering a reason to buy books if that reason is relevant to you. Obviously, for you, it is not. And we need publishers because marketing and circulation is fucking hard. Publishers do that shit for you.
For my part, even on my limited budget I can afford to pay for much of what I consume. I choose to financially support products that I actively want to see more of, like books from my favorite authors.
I didn't say it was my philosophy. I just think it's going to be the majority philosophy in the mid-term.
Which is fine as long as they are willing to deal with the consequences. I'm not saying what they are doing is wrong in the absolute. I'm simply pointing out a flaw in the economics of the strategy of getting everything you want for free right now. If people don't care enough about something to want more, then it is right that more of it should not be produced. The only problem is when people do want something and it is prevented from being released because of sales/pirating figures from the past releases.
You can just hire a single person to be an editor. Pay them a flat fee for their services, and you're all set. You don't need to get a huge publishing deal where they take a cut of your revenues and maybe even your rights, and restrict you in all sorts of ways.
You seem to be missing the distinction between Someone you employ as an editor, and someone who is a Good Editor. These are not mutually inclusive.
If people don't care enough about something to want more, then it is right that more of it should not be produced. The only problem is when people do want something and it is prevented from being released because of sales/pirating figures from the past releases.
This is the big question. When free entertainment replaces advertising-supported entertainment, we'll see if people actually will settle for what remains, or will pay for something different. We'll find out easily within our lifetimes.
When free entertainment replaces advertising-supported entertainment, we'll see if peopleactuallywill settle for what remains, or will pay for something different. We'll find out easily within our lifetimes.
Services like iTunes, Amazon MP3, Audible, and Netflix are thriving. We have already seen that people are willing to pay for content that is conveniently available. DRM is not a problem if you know it is there and you are willing to conform to the terms, and even then there are ways of getting around DRM or getting non-DRM files (like Amazon MP3). I'm not sure that we will actually progress to a completely free media marketplace. It's worth money to filter out the crap content, and there are still a significant amount of books where hard copies are more valuable than digital ones (like pattern books).
And we need publishers because marketing and circulation is fucking hard. Publishers do that shit for you.
Marketing and circulation is really easy. Create e-book. Upload to Amazon. Make web site. Actually have an Internet presence. If you're book is actually really good, it will spread. If it's not spreading, there's a distinct possibility your book just isn't good.
Which is fine as long as they are willing to deal with the consequences. I'm not saying what they are doing is wrong in the absolute. I'm simply pointing out a flaw in the economics of the strategy of getting everything you want for free right now. If people don't care enough about something to want more, then it is right that more of it should not be produced. The only problem is when people do want something and it is prevented from being released because of sales/pirating figures from the past releases.
This happens all the time. There are comics I buy every volume, and then they get canceled because not enough other people are also buying those comics. The thing is, it never makes me upset. Even if it's something I really really love, I'm not upset that it is ended or that there will be no more. Why? Because 100+ years of entertainment media are available at my fingertips. There is more available just in the public domain than I can possibly consume in my entire life. No individual property is a great loss. In fact, most of the time you want less, not more, of a certain property (Star Wars). Also, often things that have real endings are vastly superior works to those of infinite length, see anime series that are 26 episodes vs. One Piece or DBZ. Being canceled or shortened even greatly helped some series such as Escaflowne or Evangelion. And low budgets helped others, such as Utena.
If every creator stopped making new entertainment, it would be sad, but wouldn't be the worst ever because there is already more in existence than I can deal with. And much of the old is way way better than the new. Also, there are tons and tons of creators creating for free, and most of the entertainment I enjoy on a daily basis comes from those legally free sources. So what you see as consequences, aren't really consequences for me. I'd actually quite like to see some of those consequences, such as a complete crumbling of the media emperors. That would bring me great joy.
You seem to be missing the distinction between Someone you employ as an editor, and someone who is a Good Editor. These are not mutually inclusive.
There have to be at least some good editors who aren't locked in under some publisher. If your book is actually really good, I'm sure that many editors would be more than happy to look at it. Most of the people having a hard time, it's probably because their book is crap to begin with.
Marketing and circulation is really easy. Create e-book. Upload to Amazon. Make web site. Actually have an Internet presence. If you're book is actually really good, it will spread. If it's not spreading, there's a distinct possibility your book just isn't good.
um yeah, you do that and let me know how it goes. You obviously know nothing about the publishing industry, especially if you are suggesting you can just hire someone to edit your work and have it be the equivalent of a Good Editor. I know a lot of published authors, including some who have released content for free online. I have had lots of discussions and talked to a lot of people who were trying to increase distribution for FREE content. It's not a cake walk. It's a lot of work. Your statements that are backed up by zero experience don't change that fact.
In response to your second point, I reiterate my previous statement: Not applicable to you. You just move to the next thing when something you like is removed. Not all of us are so passive. As hard as it may be for you to believe, Scott, not everybody is like you.
Your statements that are backed up by zero experience don't change that fact.
While I don't fully agree with Scott here, I think we do have a lot of experience with marketing. It was really, really easy to sell people on GeekNights. It was really, really easy to make Burning Wheel vastly more popular than it was. Disagreements aside, we have at least some experience in marketing both free and non-free content.
Services like iTunes, Amazon MP3, Audible, and Netflix are thriving. We have already seen that people are willing to pay for content that is conveniently available.
Yes, but they're willing by and large to pay very little. The subscription model is likely the future, a la Netflix, but it definitely makes entertainment a commodity. A low monthly fee for access to most all content in a medium means less total money overall per creator in the long run.
If every creator stopped making new entertainment, it would be sad, but wouldn't be the worst ever because there is already more in existence than I can deal with. And much of the old is way way better than the new.
This statement pretty much declares you are just trolling Nuri. Because there is no way you believe this.
While I don't fully agree with Scott here, I think we do have a lot of experience with marketing. It was really, really easy to sell people on GeekNights. It was really, really easy to make Burning Wheel vastly more popular than it was. Disagreements aside, we have at least some experience in marketing both free and non-free content.
Penny Arcade never marketed. They just put out comics. They needed help in turning that into money, in the form of Robert Khoo, but getting popular was never a problem. They made really really good stuff and put it on the Internet for free. It's a formula for success you can see repeated many times. Minecraft? XKCD? Firefox? The thing is, this formula doesn't work often not because it's a bad formula. It doesn't work because most stuff is either crap or has a minuscule audience in the first place. If it's crap, people try it for free and delete it. If it's got a small audience, the maximum number of people who care is always going to be low, and there's not much you can do about it.
If your stuff is legitimately good, I firmly believe that just putting it out their with a proper Internet presence will lead to popularity and monetization opportunities. If that doesn't work, the odds of your stuff being crap are pretty good, but not certain.
If every creator stopped making new entertainment, it would be sad, but wouldn't be the worst ever because there is already more in existence than I can deal with. And much of the old is way way better than the new.
This statement pretty much declares you are just trolling Nuri. Because there is no way you believe this.
Disagreements aside, we have at least some experience in marketing both free and non-free content.
Marketing, yes. Publishing literature, no. There is a difference between marketing a continuing show or a game system and marketing a book. Also, the only reason Geeknights was trivially easy for you guys is that you had lots of money and time.
Those damned kids with their Rock music, Big bands were so much better, nothing Rock will ever do will be better and if it does get a few hits it still won't be worth the effort since all the Big Band music is the best.
If every creator stopped making new entertainment, it would be sad, but wouldn't be the worst ever because there is already more in existence than I can deal with. And much of the old is way way better than the new.
This statement pretty much declares you are just trolling Nuri. Because there is no way you believe this.
Maybe you are forgetting who you are talking to. This is Scott Rubin, master of the unfeeling and uncaring.
Comments
I understand your philosophy on life is that of a scavenger and not a pull consumer. Your financial philosophy is to consume whatever is put before you instead of encouraging the production of specific goods you want to see. That's fine, but it is not the philosophy to which this appeal is made.
Take for example superhero comics. There are torrents you can get every week that have every single Marvel and DC comic scanned. The people who get those torrents would not under any circumstance buy all those comics. The overwhelming majority could not afford to buy all those comics. If that torrent went away, they would simply stop reading. They read it because it's free, and if it weren't free they wouldn't read. The fanboys who would buy the comics still do so. There's few, if any, people who are willing and able to purchase those comics who pirate instead.
If anything those pirated comics are actually making money for Marvel and DC. People who otherwise would never have read a superhero comic, now at least read them. They become fans, and maybe they grow to care over time. That results in them maybe seeing a movie, or buying merch, or who knows what.
Also, you point out that publishers are pooping on authors who have lots of piracy. Those publishers are morons. Obviously a more pirated author is a more popular author. You want to keep them, not get rid of them! Also, in an era when anyone can put out a book on their own, what do you even need a publisher for? To take a cut of your revenues? You used to need publishers to do the printing and the marketing, but they're just middlemen. In the world of 2011, publishers are obsolete and completely unnecessary. The only middle-men who aren't obsolete are the ones who provide technological services, but even they have no business model if people are technologically competent.
Also, Neil Gaiman disagrees with you.
Whatever my philosophy, my reality is that I am barely engaged as a consumer of anything where my consumption is meaningful to the creator, what for the fact that the accumulated wealth of things I've purchased in the past far outweighs any desire to acquire more. I spend more money on conventions than I do on all media combined in an average year, yet simultaneously pirate almost nothing (discounting piracy of things that are patently unavailable legally).
If you will look at everything I have posted, it is not intended to berate you or tell you you should be buying books instead of pirating them. I am simply offering a reason to buy books if that reason is relevant to you. Obviously, for you, it is not. And we need publishers because marketing and circulation is fucking hard. Publishers do that shit for you.
For my part, even on my limited budget I can afford to pay for much of what I consume. I choose to financially support products that I actively want to see more of, like books from my favorite authors. Which is fine as long as they are willing to deal with the consequences. I'm not saying what they are doing is wrong in the absolute. I'm simply pointing out a flaw in the economics of the strategy of getting everything you want for free right now. If people don't care enough about something to want more, then it is right that more of it should not be produced. The only problem is when people do want something and it is prevented from being released because of sales/pirating figures from the past releases.
If every creator stopped making new entertainment, it would be sad, but wouldn't be the worst ever because there is already more in existence than I can deal with. And much of the old is way way better than the new. Also, there are tons and tons of creators creating for free, and most of the entertainment I enjoy on a daily basis comes from those legally free sources. So what you see as consequences, aren't really consequences for me. I'd actually quite like to see some of those consequences, such as a complete crumbling of the media emperors. That would bring me great joy.
In response to your second point, I reiterate my previous statement: Not applicable to you. You just move to the next thing when something you like is removed. Not all of us are so passive. As hard as it may be for you to believe, Scott, not everybody is like you.
If your stuff is legitimately good, I firmly believe that just putting it out their with a proper Internet presence will lead to popularity and monetization opportunities. If that doesn't work, the odds of your stuff being crap are pretty good, but not certain.